For starters, Superman was working with the Armed Forced. He had their full blessing. He was not a vigilante. I guarantee you there is probably only 1 person (Luthor) in the Man of Steel Universe who didnt want Superman to finish Zod off.

At another forum a member spoke about how a relative of his shot a home intrude who had broken into the house. It was a good shot, and the intruder died. The intruder was carrying a gun. Obviously the guy who pulled the trigger was not put in jail. There is 'make my day' laws etc. In many states if you step foot on someones property without their permission you may get shot while nothing happens to the guy who shoots you.

The Joker killed 600 people his entire life? Zod can kill 600 people in a few seconds. Zod was a living weapon of mass destruction. He was genetically engineered, so he could not be reasoned with. He made it clear humans were trash to him, and he would have no problem wiping them all out. He would probably do so then go commit suicide somewhere.

I understand the traditional Super hero approach is that they can solve any problem without hurting anyone. But Snyder, like many comic book movie directors before him, is putting his own twist to the formula. Zach Snyder films always tend to end with the hero making a sacrifice for the greater good. 300, Sucker Punch, Man of Steel, all movies required the hero to make a sacrifice at the end.

If a criminal was about to shoot you and your family dead, wouldnt you want a cop to shoot him first? When you're in the position of responsibility like a cop or a Superman, you have to make some tough decisions. A cop who kills someone to save others is not considered a murdurer. He is considered a hero. Throughout history wars have been fought and many have died. Death is part of making things right, unfortunately.

The biggest thing to remember for me personally is that Superheroes have this no kill code because it makes them sound better then they really are. Is Clark Kent standing up for that woman in the bar more praiseworthy then a normal guy doing it, a guy who knows hes not invincible? For me its been too easy for superheroes. Put them in positions that an everyday man could possibly face, a situation that would be just as tough for Superman as it is would be for the everyday man. Superman was in such a position at the end of Man of Steel.

At the end of Superman the movie Superman faced the mortality of a loved one, something that almost everyone has already faced or certainly will face. So does he have to live it down like everyone else? No he can reverse time. Suddenly he isnt so relatable. I guess you can call him a 'super' hero because the tough decisions and problems of the every day man dont affect a Deuce Ex Machina character.

In typical Snyder fashion, I expect another sacrifice by the hero at the end of Superman & Batman. It will likely enrage comic book fans everywhere, but thats fine with me. Riding off into the sunset gets old after a while.

^Totally agreed. I'm glad Snyder mixed it up at the end with putting Superman in the situation he was in. It's just too easy to be able to suck everyone back in the zone with no tough decision to make. God forbid someone actually doesn't play it safe with a superhero at the end and have it be of all people Superman!

And I have no idea what Morrison is talking about with bloodlust. Just because I approve of the ending to MOS doesn't mean I want Superman or any other hero killing people left and right. That is not my desire at all!

Quote: I kinda liked it and kinda didn't, to be honest. I feel bad because I like (director) Zack Snyder and (writer) David Goyer, and (star) Henry Cavill was really good. But it felt like one of those ones where it's like, "Bring on the second movie now that you've done this," and I don't need to see that as someone who knows all I know about Superman. For me, it was a bit "seen it before," no matter how they tried to make it a little bit different. I'm more looking forward to the Dark Knight version of Superman, the next one, where hopefully it will have Lex Luthor and be some fantastic second act.It's a credible Superman for now. But I'm not sure about the killing thing. I don't want to sound like some fuddy-duddy Silver Age apologist but I've noticed a lot recently of people saying Batman should kill the Joker and, yeah, Superman should kill, he should make the tough moral decisions we all have to make every day. I don't know about you, but the last moral decision I made didn't have anything to do with killing people. And I don't think many of us ever have to make the decision whether or not to kill. In fact, the more you think about it, unless you're in one of the Armed Forces, killing is illegal and immoral. Why would we want our superheroes to do that?
There is a certain demand for it, but I just keep wondering why people insist that this is the sort of thing we'd all do if we were in Superman's place and had to make the tough decision and we'd kill Zod. Would we? Very few of us have ever killed anything. What is this weird bloodlust in watching our superheroes kill the villains?

Well, sorry Mr. Morrison, but you do sound like a fuddy-duddy. How many times must this be gone over: Superman has killed before. This is not a new thing. I'm kind of over the whole, "OMG, SUPERMAN DOESN'T KILL" hysteria people have been wringing their hands over.

Yes. He. Does.

I don't care if you don't like it. That is not the point. The point is that Superman has been forced to kill, when there are no other options.

And Morrison is wrong on other counts as well. It is not blood-lust that people have. It's that they want to see that the hero is able to make the tough choices. They want to know what the hero is willing to sacrifice. They want to see that it's not easy to be the hero.

Truthfully, I am irritated by the reaction people have had. Anyone who has ever had to kill in self-defense has to struggle with that choice. For people who weren't in that situation, who weren't involved in that moment to sit back and say, "Self-defense is just murder. There's always another way" is as obnoxious as it is painful.

A no-killing policy does not make someone superior or better than everyone else. In fact, if you think about it, how many of the bad guys keep showing up in the comics? The heroes let them live, despite the death and destruction caused by them, and then the baddie shows up later, causing more death, more destruction.

Isn't putting society/the world/the universe at risk over and over again reckless and harmful? At what point does the balance shift in favor of the innocent?

Finally, Morrison lost me when he said that killing is immoral unless you're in the armed forces. He has no concept at all how much combat affects the soldiers, clearly. Also, he has forgotten about police officers. And people who have had to fight for survival -- ordinary people who have defended themselves against those who would do them harm. He's dismissed them and their suffering as if it's nothing. And for what? A freakin' comic book character.

So really, Morrison can go f-himself. His view of the world is based on fantasy, and the happy fiction that only super heroes and the military have to make life or death decisions. No, sorry. Not true.

For starters, Superman was working with the Armed Forced. He had their full blessing. He was not a vigilante. I guarantee you there is probably only 1 person (Luthor) in the Man of Steel Universe who didnt want Superman to finish Zod off.

At another forum a member spoke about how a relative of his shot a home intrude who had broken into the house. It was a good shot, and the intruder died. The intruder was carrying a gun. Obviously the guy who pulled the trigger was not put in jail. There is 'make my day' laws etc. In many states if you step foot on someones property without their permission you may get shot while nothing happens to the guy who shoots you.

The Joker killed 600 people his entire life? Zod can kill 600 people in a few seconds. Zod was a living weapon of mass destruction. He was genetically engineered, so he could not be reasoned with. He made it clear humans were trash to him, and he would have no problem wiping them all out. He would probably do so then go commit suicide somewhere.

I understand the traditional Super hero approach is that they can solve any problem without hurting anyone. But Snyder, like many comic book movie directors before him, is putting his own twist to the formula. Zach Snyder films always tend to end with the hero making a sacrifice for the greater good. 300, Sucker Punch, Man of Steel, all movies required the hero to make a sacrifice at the end.

If a criminal was about to shoot you and your family dead, wouldnt you want a cop to shoot him first? When you're in the position of responsibility like a cop or a Superman, you have to make some tough decisions. A cop who kills someone to save others is not considered a murdurer. He is considered a hero. Throughout history wars have been fought and many have died. Death is part of making things right, unfortunately.

The biggest thing to remember for me personally is that Superheroes have this no kill code because it makes them sound better then they really are. Is Clark Kent standing up for that woman in the bar more praiseworthy then a normal guy doing it, a guy who knows hes not invincible? For me its been too easy for superheroes. Put them in positions that an everyday man could possibly face, a situation that would be just as tough for Superman as it is would be for the everyday man. Superman was in such a position at the end of Man of Steel.

At the end of Superman the movie Superman faced the mortality of a loved one, something that almost everyone has already faced or certainly will face. So does he have to live it down like everyone else? No he can reverse time. Suddenly he isnt so relatable. I guess you can call him a 'super' hero because the tough decisions and problems of the every day man dont affect a Deuce Ex Machina character.

In typical Snyder fashion, I expect another sacrifice by the hero at the end of Superman & Batman. It will likely enrage comic book fans everywhere, but thats fine with me. Riding off into the sunset gets old after a while.

I posted this in another thread in response to someone taking issue with Morrison's quote:

In that situation, sure, he didn't have a choice.

But the thing is Goyer didn't have to write it that way. He wasn't obligated to create a scenario where Superman didn't have any other choice but kill Zod. And more than that, I don't really think writing that scenario added much to the film.

Me personally, I don't mind if Superman has to kill the bad guy under very extreme circumstances as long as the narrative acknowledges and pays reverence to the gravity and severity of it, and as long as it's earned by the narrative and furthers the themes and stories.

The thing is, I don't feel like Zod's death did this. In general, I don't think Zod not getting sucked into the Phantom Zone and having one last fight with Superman after the rest of the Kryptonians were locked away added anything to the film at all. If Zod had been sucked into the PZ with the rest of them, the movie wouldn't have been any different other than being shorter. That last fight and Zod's death didn't really enhance or add to the film at all, it was just a second climax on top of the first one.

So part of it is that the death wasn't necessary really. Just have Zod get sucked into the Phantom Zone with the rest of them and it wouldn't have been an issue.

Yes, "people" would have. Because you cannot please everyone no matter how hard you try. Zakk made his movie and it was a good movie. I cannot wait for the Blue Ray/DVD, so I can sit down and rewatch the movie hundreds of times, and I hope it has hours of making of docs, costume design, Henry's training, etc. I want that movie like I wanted the TDK DVD or the Avatar DVD.

I agree that the defense of what little choice superman had doesn't address the (current) issue. He obviously had no choice any fool can see this. However the bigger question is whether or not the producers should have put the character in that position.
It's important I say producers cause in this instance more than most others it wasn't just Goyer writing some personal short film. He, the director and the Nolan all happily signed off on this. I'm sure if you ask any three of them right now they will provide a rhetoric for it. (two of them already have)

My take boils down to what are the benefits of this direction. For example morrison doesn't like a killing, well it seems the purpose of this exercise will be to address that. Sure it's not addressed entirely in this film alone but if it serves toward the larger story(ala TDK trilogy), than I think the morrison ilk will see their issue addressed. Whether they agree at that point I find more interesting.

I also think it significant that this film bring up the issue.
I mean the 5 other cbm adaptations this summer alone will have the hero killing the villains in a mountain of glory and the GA and pundits alike probably wouldn't have said a word about the "bloodlust of our audience" otherwise, but here in this film we all take a collective stand. I get that superman represents something more to some people but that fact alone doesn't explain the lack of attention the constant killing has gotten. I mean Morrison writes one hell of a batman and I'm sure the constant villain killing in those films is worth equal scrutiny(though morrison has had his batman attempt to kill), yet also never brought up.

For the time being I'm with Grant on one thing. I think this sets up for one hell of a sequel and given these producers, I think that will be their moment to really shine/deliver. If we end up with a superman with a stringent no kill rule I will applaud these producers for giving me superman in a different way than has been. One that doesn't just not kill, but with the dramatization in the characterization.

__________________
"I care because filmmakers now make films under crippling security because of parasitic gossip. makes movies worse"
-James Mangold.

I think people tend to take things for granted with Superman. They have a view of him and it is uncompromising. Superman's no kill rule comes out of no where. Nothing in the stories can anyone point to to say this is when he decided not to kill. With Batman it's easy because the character was created from a murder. Batman is a person's reaction to that murder and saying "never again". There is nothing like that for Superman.
I think in that scene, and I am sure we'll see it play out in other movies, we see the genesis of Superman's no kill rule. People say it was a failure of the character and I agree. Superman failed...and I think he knows that. I believe the next time we see him that failure will make him the Superman that will always look for the non lethal way. He will be the guy that pulls his punches until he grows into the Superman that confronted Darkseid in JLU...tired of pulling his punches and feeling like he is living in a cardboard world.
This is the creation of the no kill rule. I think the GA needed to see that considering that have had a heavy dose of heroes who kill for a very long time.

__________________
Journeying to the Undying Lands in the West
So Long and thanks for all the fish

Wasn't Morrison the same guy who had Batman shoot Darkseid with a gun A GUN) using a bullet that was highly toxic to NG's? Batman even says that it was an exception because he had no other option, just like Superman with Zod. Also, I completely reject the premise that killing one man to save all of humanity makes Superman less moral, he made the right choice. Police and soldiers kill, it doesn't make them any less heroic. Also, it's not bloodlust Grant, its liking the idea that for once Superman could contrive his way out of making a difficult moral choice. Also, you killed Damian (a ten year old boy) in the most brutal and horrifying way possible, who are you to talk about bloodlust?

I don't really care. People are always going to complain about something. There was more than enough fight scene up until that point, wanting more on top of all that is silly.

Problem is, up to that point, Superman and Zod had not had a proper fight. It was only Superman beating Zod down for a few seconds and then Zod retreated. I think, in these types of films, you need to have a proper fight between the hero and lead villain.

Problem is, up to that point, Superman and Zod had not had a proper fight. It was only Superman beating Zod down for a few seconds and then Zod retreated. I think, in these types of films, you need to have a proper fight between the hero and lead villain.

I disagree. I think Superman trapping Zod and his minions in the Phantom Zone would have been a fine resolution to the conflict, one where Superman uses his intellect and not brute force to defeat the villain.

Why is it important to the conflict that Superman and Zod physically punch each other?

I disagree. I think Superman trapping Zod and his minions in the Phantom Zone would have been a fine resolution to the conflict, one where Superman uses his intellect and not brute force to defeat the villain.

Why is it important to the conflict that Superman and Zod physically punch each other?

I disagree and it's my personal preference that the lead villain not suffer the same fate as the rest of his cronies. I would have found that unsatisfying and anti-climactic.

I disagree and it's my personal preference that the lead villain not suffer the same fate as the rest of his cronies. I would have found that unsatisfying and anti-climactic.

In this particular situation, we can all be arm chair critics and postulate on what could have been better. I suppose this is the way executives feel before the fact.

I personally I think had this film not ended in a super fight fight, there would be a fair amount of criticisms. Especially given the first 3rd of the film. I still think they should have started the fight before the doomsday weapon was turned off and had the humans(perhaps even luthor) deal with that.

__________________
"I care because filmmakers now make films under crippling security because of parasitic gossip. makes movies worse"
-James Mangold.

I disagree. I think Superman trapping Zod and his minions in the Phantom Zone would have been a fine resolution to the conflict, one where Superman uses his intellect and not brute force to defeat the villain.

Why is it important to the conflict that Superman and Zod physically punch each other?

I fail to see how that is Superman using his intellect when it wasn't him who figured out how to create the wormhole. He was just doing what he was told. He barely ever uses his own intellect the entire movie. Although I did not particularly like how they resolved Zod I do think Zod being sucked in with his minions would have been extremely anticlimactic.

Zod is a super powered Kryptonian just like Superman. Of course they should punch each other, this is the perfect opportunity to have a full-on Superman fight. Superman defeating Zod with brute force is both natural for a novice with no training, and given what type of villain Zod was. Metallo and Lex are villains that he would use his intelligence to beat.

"Man of Steel" wasn't fun ... it was too dark ... and felt more like a Batman movie than a Superman flick ... so says Ilya Salkind, the guy behind the Christopher Reeve version.

Ilya is the guy who brought Superman to the big screen way back in the 1970s. He produced "Superman" and "Superman II" ... i.e. his opinion matters. So when our photog caught up to him this weekend in L.A., he had to get his thoughts on the new, beefed up version ... which has grossed almost $300 million in the U.S. alone.

Salkind however is NOT a fan. First, he says the movie is "okay", trying to keep the peace. But a female friend blows up his spot, shouting out, "Tell the truth!"

Grant Morrison... a truly great comic writer, and creator of one of the most popular Superman stories of all time... has his opinion dismissed by a defensive fan as though he is some hack blogger idiot?

Please

Agree with him or not, but I think he has earned a bit more repspect than that.

__________________

Superman: "I can only tell you what I believe, Diana. humankind has to be allowed to climb to its own destiny. We can't carry them there."Flash: "But that's what she's saying. What's the point? Why should they need us at all?"Superman: "To catch them if they fall."

His comment about the film feeling "seen it before" was the same reason why I initially had preferred them going with an established Superman off the break instead of doing an origin film. I'm curious to how innovative he wanted them to go.

I don't agree or disagree with his comments about the killing. That's always going to be one of those up in the air debates for me. I accepted it and thought it worked, but would've preferred an alternate route.

Though now that we've seen Superman kill and how uncomfortable it is for both him and the audience, it definitely makes you go, "Wow that just isn't right. Yeah he definitely shouldn't kill."

And Morrison's awesome. One of the best Superman writers of all time, and the writer of my favorite Superman epic, All-Star Superman. I was curious to know what he thought of the film.

__________________Everyone brings joy to this forum. Some by coming in. Some by going out...

His comment about the film feeling "seen it before" was the same reason why I initially had preferred them going with an established Superman off the break instead of doing an origin film. I'm curious to how innovative he wanted them to go.

I don't agree or disagree with his comments about the killing. That's always going to be one of those up in the air debates for me. I accepted it and thought it worked, but would've preferred an alternate route.

Though now that we've seen Superman kill and how uncomfortable it is for both him and the audience, it definitely makes you go, "Wow that just isn't right. Yeah he definitely shouldn't kill."

And Morrison's awesome. One of the best Superman writers of all time, and the writer of my favorite Superman epic, All-Star Superman. I was curious to know what he thought of the film.

You read my mind. I don't MIND that he had to kill now, but I'd prefer a "tidy" PZ style ending. It'd be unconventional (most bad guys die at the end of superhero movies) and it would allow for more character moments.

Also, Salkind said it was "okay." He didn't outright pan it. It sounded like he was going soft on it, even when he said the tone was Batmanish.

Sure, they are partially to blame with what went wrong in the Reeve franchise, but without them, it might not have got off the ground.

You read my mind. I don't MIND that he had to kill now, but I'd prefer a "tidy" PZ style ending. It'd be unconventional (most bad guys die at the end of superhero movies) and it would allow for more character moments.

Also, Salkind said it was "okay." He didn't outright pan it. It sounded like he was going soft on it, even when he said the tone was Batmanish.

Sure, they are partially to blame with what went wrong in the Reeve franchise, but without them, it might not get off the ground.

I didn't read Salkind's. Only Morrison's interview.

It sounded like his main issues were the killing and that the film felt too familiar to him. Totally understandable. And he called it a credible Superman.

__________________Everyone brings joy to this forum. Some by coming in. Some by going out...